sorrygottarunway
Well-Known Member
WHERE\'S THE LOVE MR FSDO???
I don't know if you guys remember my post a few weeks ago when the FAA made a surprise ramp check at our flight school a few weeks ago. Post Title: Oops part deux, FAA pays a visit.
Well just in yesterday's newspaper, I found out about some more problems the FAA is pulling at our airport:
[ QUOTE ]
Danbury News-Times
2003-12-19
FAA orders airport changes
Danbury told to cut trees or shorten the runways
By Mark Langlois
THE NEWS-TIMES
DANBURY — Trees growing on private property around Danbury Municipal Airport
are getting tall enough to obstruct planes, and the federal government wants
expensive changes.
The Federal Aviation Authority, which governs airports, has ordered Danbury
to cut the trees or shorten runways.
Shorter runways would force bigger planes to land elsewhere and might cause
some airport businesses to move out of Danbury.
And the costs involved in solving the problem could lead to closure of the
airport, said Mayor Mark Boughton.
The FAA asked the city to pursue buying easements to cut trees on the
private land starting in 1989 and repeated the request several times since then.
"It’s a safety issue,” said Airport Administrator Paul Estefan. "It went
before the Common Council in 1991, and after a two-hour committee meeting, the
request (to pursue the easements) was denied. Now we have real problems.”
Estefan said the city and FAA did three studies of the issue in the 1990s.
FAA officials are now very serious about solving this problem in 2004, both
Boughton and Estefan said.
"What happened is the city ignored the FAA,” Boughton said. "You must do
this, they said, and now the FAA is saying they’ll shorten the runways as a
result of these trees.”
A new study by the FAA is under way that will decide how much shorter
Danbury’s runways should be if the trees are not cut. Even if a plan is in place,
Boughton said, it could take several years to buy the easements and cut the
trees. In the meantime, the FAA could order the runway restrictions to be put
in place immediately.
The airport has two runways. The longest, runway 8/26, runs essentially
east-west and is 4,422 feet long with 4,000 feet for landing. If the FAA trims
1,000 feet from that, Estefan said, the character of the airport would change
because the larger airplanes and jets would move elsewhere.
The cost of buying the easements was originally estimated at $4.5 million,
Estefan said, but that number could change.
The FAA and state would pay roughly 97 percent of the cost so if the final
bill were $4.5 million, Danbury would pay $110,250, Estefan said.
"It’s a joke, an embarrassment,” Estefan said. "We’re going to lose our
runway, and there’s almost no money involved.”
Boughton said he would prefer not to spend any money on the problem.
"That’s why we’d like the airport to begin generating more money,” Boughton
said. "This is a terrible year for these costs.”
He said he will order his staff to create an action plan immediately to
address the work requested in the FAA study.
Boughton also plans to study the future of the airport and how it can raise
enough money to pay for itself.
Because of the city’s reluctance to address the issue of the trees over the
past 14 years, Estefan said, the FAA is no longer giving Danbury money for
infrastructure improvements at the airport, like work on runways.
"The net effect of this could be shutting the airport,” Boughton said.
Contact Mark Langlois
at mlanglois@newstimes.com
or at (203) 731-3337.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering... this, along with all of Joseph P Sherman (yes thats his name, he lives along the approach/departure path to the airport) noise complaints could really create havoc at our field. As an AOPA member, should I be writing a response? Making calls? Doing my part? If we loose our runways, then we loose the jets, and a lot of commerce... the airport may shut down. UGH!
Another option: can I egg Joseph Sherman's house? (are you in Tim06?)
I don't know if you guys remember my post a few weeks ago when the FAA made a surprise ramp check at our flight school a few weeks ago. Post Title: Oops part deux, FAA pays a visit.
Well just in yesterday's newspaper, I found out about some more problems the FAA is pulling at our airport:
[ QUOTE ]
Danbury News-Times
2003-12-19
FAA orders airport changes
Danbury told to cut trees or shorten the runways
By Mark Langlois
THE NEWS-TIMES
DANBURY — Trees growing on private property around Danbury Municipal Airport
are getting tall enough to obstruct planes, and the federal government wants
expensive changes.
The Federal Aviation Authority, which governs airports, has ordered Danbury
to cut the trees or shorten runways.
Shorter runways would force bigger planes to land elsewhere and might cause
some airport businesses to move out of Danbury.
And the costs involved in solving the problem could lead to closure of the
airport, said Mayor Mark Boughton.
The FAA asked the city to pursue buying easements to cut trees on the
private land starting in 1989 and repeated the request several times since then.
"It’s a safety issue,” said Airport Administrator Paul Estefan. "It went
before the Common Council in 1991, and after a two-hour committee meeting, the
request (to pursue the easements) was denied. Now we have real problems.”
Estefan said the city and FAA did three studies of the issue in the 1990s.
FAA officials are now very serious about solving this problem in 2004, both
Boughton and Estefan said.
"What happened is the city ignored the FAA,” Boughton said. "You must do
this, they said, and now the FAA is saying they’ll shorten the runways as a
result of these trees.”
A new study by the FAA is under way that will decide how much shorter
Danbury’s runways should be if the trees are not cut. Even if a plan is in place,
Boughton said, it could take several years to buy the easements and cut the
trees. In the meantime, the FAA could order the runway restrictions to be put
in place immediately.
The airport has two runways. The longest, runway 8/26, runs essentially
east-west and is 4,422 feet long with 4,000 feet for landing. If the FAA trims
1,000 feet from that, Estefan said, the character of the airport would change
because the larger airplanes and jets would move elsewhere.
The cost of buying the easements was originally estimated at $4.5 million,
Estefan said, but that number could change.
The FAA and state would pay roughly 97 percent of the cost so if the final
bill were $4.5 million, Danbury would pay $110,250, Estefan said.
"It’s a joke, an embarrassment,” Estefan said. "We’re going to lose our
runway, and there’s almost no money involved.”
Boughton said he would prefer not to spend any money on the problem.
"That’s why we’d like the airport to begin generating more money,” Boughton
said. "This is a terrible year for these costs.”
He said he will order his staff to create an action plan immediately to
address the work requested in the FAA study.
Boughton also plans to study the future of the airport and how it can raise
enough money to pay for itself.
Because of the city’s reluctance to address the issue of the trees over the
past 14 years, Estefan said, the FAA is no longer giving Danbury money for
infrastructure improvements at the airport, like work on runways.
"The net effect of this could be shutting the airport,” Boughton said.
Contact Mark Langlois
at mlanglois@newstimes.com
or at (203) 731-3337.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering... this, along with all of Joseph P Sherman (yes thats his name, he lives along the approach/departure path to the airport) noise complaints could really create havoc at our field. As an AOPA member, should I be writing a response? Making calls? Doing my part? If we loose our runways, then we loose the jets, and a lot of commerce... the airport may shut down. UGH!
Another option: can I egg Joseph Sherman's house? (are you in Tim06?)
